DVDActive uses cookies to remember your actions, such as your answer in the poll. Cookies are
also used by third-parties for statistics, social media and advertising. By using this website, it is
assumed that you agree to this.

Paramount has now revealed artwork for the Complete Adventure Collection

Further Details:
Paramount Home Entertainment has announced 1-disc ($29.99), 2-disc ($39.99) and Blu-ray ($39.99) releases of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull which stars Harrison Ford. Each will be available to own from the 14th October. We've attached the full disc specs for each of the releases below, along with the official package artwork. We're still awaiting artwork for the 2-disc DVD. Stay tuned for that.

Also available from the 14th October will be The Complete Adventure Collection, which will include the first three films plus the two-disc Special Edition DVD of the latest installment. This will retail at $89.99.

Quote:

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull: 1-Disc

• The Return of a Legend — The evolution of the new film and a tribute to the legendary hero • Pre-Production— Follows Steven Spielberg as he creates animatic sequences, Shia LaBeouf as he learns to swordfight and captures the reunion of filmmakers and cast on the soundstage.

Quote:

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull: 2-Disc Special Edition

Disc One

• The Return of a Legend—The evolution of the new film and a tribute to the legendary hero and his creators. • Pre-Production—Follows Steven Spielberg as he creates animatic sequences, Shia LaBeouf as he learns to swordfight and captures the reunion of filmmakers and cast on the soundstage.

• Indiana Jones Timelines - Story Timeline: Showcases the key events of the “Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” storyline. - Production Timeline: A Making-of chronology for “Kingdom of the Crystal Skull”. - Historical Timeline: Dives into the real-world historical influences • The Return of a Legend • Pre-Production

Advertisements

Comments

Reply

Message

Enter the message here then press submit. The username, password and message are required. Please make the message constructive, you are fully responsible for the legality of anything you contribute. Terms & conditions apply.

Its definintley the weakest out of the four films. I found a bit hard to have Indy going up against the Russkies than the Nazis (the main villian of the saga).

The main problem for me was that it took almost 20 years to get this fu**er to the screen & I couldn't help but feel a little let down by it. The other annoying bit was how Lucas fu**ing had to tie the Young Indy Chronicles into the film series & dump Connery's character by killing him off. I thought the latter was a cheap shot after Connery declined to reprise the role of Indy's dad. At any rate I found out that for the DVD release FYE has an exclusive steelbook edition (poster artwork), while Best Buy has a Crystal Skull bust with a 25 dollar gift card to Sideshow Collectibles.

At first I despised this movie. It just wasn't Indiana Jones the way it should've been. I was really upset. Then I went and saw it again, and I was still mad about certain things. I didn't mind the fact that there was a supposed crystal skull from aliens, but it was when the aliens actually appeared, then took off in a freaking spaceship that really got me. Plus there was the 100+ other completely unrealistic and unplausible things that happened in this movie that made it so much worse than the originals (swinging through the trees, surviving a nuclear blast by hiding in a fridge, driving off a cliff into a tree that bends allllll the way down and perfectly lets you off, etc, etc). Apart from that is the plot. Who cares if Indy rescues this professor. We've never heard of him and we know nothing about him, making the audience have no emotional stock in the story. Now, as many other people have said, if Sallah had been kidnapped, we all would've been glued to the screen. Then there's the fact that Indy has a kid and gets married that throws his old character out the window. The whole movie was just not an Indiana Jones film.

Despite allllll these things I found super flawed about the movie, I now realize that the movie did its job. I think back about this movie and every time grow more appreciation for it. I was really entertained by it, and it was adventurous. Still, the movie just didn't seem like Indiana Jones.

Chris Gould wrote: m@tt wrote: Chris Gould wrote: m@tt wrote: Thats right theres no accounting for taste, some people want an intelligent script while others (you) would like aliens and flying saucers LOL. Yawn. So all films with aliens and flying saucers lack intelligent scriptwriting? What a load of cobblers. Ever seen Close Encounters? Using The Da Vinci Code as an example of an intelligent film is laughable. It was universally panned for many reasons (bloated, badly acted, poor dialogue). There are things wrong with Crystal Skull, but at least it isn't a massive f**king bore-fest.

Try reading the book or do you have to wait for everything to be adapted (badly most of the time) for the big screen?

Yes i've seen Close Encounters.

Way to move the goalposts. 'Oh look, I can't come up with a coherent argument to back up my last statement, so I'll move the topic of conversation from film to literature. That'll learn 'im!' Genius, Matt. Are you on a debating team? Actually, I've encountered those unorthodox tactics before. Are you really a woman?

m@tt wrote: Chris Gould wrote: m@tt wrote: Thats right theres no accounting for taste, some people want an intelligent script while others (you) would like aliens and flying saucers LOL. Yawn. So all films with aliens and flying saucers lack intelligent scriptwriting? What a load of cobblers. Ever seen Close Encounters? Using The Da Vinci Code as an example of an intelligent film is laughable. It was universally panned for many reasons (bloated, badly acted, poor dialogue). There are things wrong with Crystal Skull, but at least it isn't a massive f**king bore-fest.

Try reading the book or do you have to wait for everything to be adapted (badly most of the time) for the big screen?

Yes i've seen Close Encounters.

Way to move the goalposts. 'Oh look, I can't come up with a coherent argument to back up my last statement, so I'll move the topic of conversation from film to literature. That'll learn 'im!' Genius, Matt. Are you on a debating team? Actually, I've encountered those unorthodox tactics before. Are you really a woman?

Chris Gould wrote: m@tt wrote: Thats right theres no accounting for taste, some people want an intelligent script while others (you) would like aliens and flying saucers LOL. Yawn. So all films with aliens and flying saucers lack intelligent scriptwriting? What a load of cobblers. Ever seen Close Encounters? Using The Da Vinci Code as an example of an intelligent film is laughable. It was universally panned for many reasons (bloated, badly acted, poor dialogue). There are things wrong with Crystal Skull, but at least it isn't a massive f**king bore-fest.

Try reading the book or do you have to wait for everything to be adapted (badly most of the time) for the big screen?

Blue-Kal-El wrote: Both Indy and Batman are flawed movies, but Indy is a better made movie. Most of you dislike Indy because this time around, there is no religious theme for you to root for. I mean, come on, give the guy a change for once. Again, as for TDK, I agree with Lionel. Again, why didn't Nolan do a standalone crime film, why did he have to use Batman for his 'new look'...ugh...

How do you figure Indy to be the 'better made film'? That statement boggles my mind. Did we watch the same movie? Indy had no real excitement, no decent storyline, weak action, and some pretty bad acting. That can't be said for Dark Knight. Combining aliens with Indiana Jones is about as idiotic an idea as combining James Bond with the Smurfs. They simply do not belong together.

Both Indy and Batman are flawed movies, but Indy is a better made movie. Most of you dislike Indy because this time around, there is no religious theme for you to root for. I mean, come on, give the guy a change for once.

Again, as for TDK, I agree with Lionel. Again, why didn't Nolan do a standalone crime film, why did he have to use Batman for his 'new look'...ugh...

m@tt wrote: Thats right theres no accounting for taste, some people want an intelligent script while others (you) would like aliens and flying saucers LOL. Yawn. So all films with aliens and flying saucers lack intelligent scriptwriting? What a load of cobblers. Ever seen Close Encounters? Using The Da Vinci Code as an example of an intelligent film is laughable. It was universally panned for many reasons (bloated, badly acted, poor dialogue). There are things wrong with Crystal Skull, but at least it isn't a massive f**king bore-fest.

lionel wrote: highdough wrote: lionel wrote: what is with this dark knight bulls**t.... look at the movie and ask yourself, would it have been half as good without the joker?

the movie is no better than batman begins, but add joker too the mix and he takes the movie to a whole new level. any and every scene without him is just fodder and uninteresting things we have seen done in the previous film.

so thats why the dark knight deserves a nice OVERRATED slap to the proverbial face . wake up people.

So you take out a main character, and the movie would suffer. Not sure how that means the movie is overrated. If you take out Han's character in the first three Star Wars movies, then the movie isn't as good. Take out Hannibal from Silence of the Lambs and the movie suffers. Take out Cuba Gooding Jr from Jerry Maguire and the movie is lacking. What exactly is your point? That removing an important main character can hurt a movie?

in this movies case it can severely, because i found nothing at all interesting other than heaths portrayal of the joker, take him away and i see a movie that is lacking in every other department. i have seen action done better and a much more engaging plot elsewhere. i just don't find the movie should be in as high regards as it is. maybe it was just the expectations, but idk.

Well, I saw the movie for the first time only a week or so ago, so had already heard all the hype and how much money it had made, but I still loved it. I think that says a lot. You didn't think anything without the Joker was entertaining. I did. I thought several scenes without the Joker were quite memorable.

highdough wrote: lionel wrote: what is with this dark knight bulls**t.... look at the movie and ask yourself, would it have been half as good without the joker?

the movie is no better than batman begins, but add joker too the mix and he takes the movie to a whole new level. any and every scene without him is just fodder and uninteresting things we have seen done in the previous film.

so thats why the dark knight deserves a nice OVERRATED slap to the proverbial face . wake up people.

So you take out a main character, and the movie would suffer. Not sure how that means the movie is overrated. If you take out Han's character in the first three Star Wars movies, then the movie isn't as good. Take out Hannibal from Silence of the Lambs and the movie suffers. Take out Cuba Gooding Jr from Jerry Maguire and the movie is lacking. What exactly is your point? That removing an important main character can hurt a movie?

in this movies case it can severely, because i found nothing at all interesting other than heaths portrayal of the joker, take him away and i see a movie that is lacking in every other department. i have seen action done better and a much more engaging plot elsewhere. i just don't find the movie should be in as high regards as it is. maybe it was just the expectations, but idk.

Chris Gould wrote: Da B-Meister wrote: Right back at you, skippy. Getting some sort of happy tingly feeling in being that way? Matt's right, you're just looking for an argument and it's getting old. We get it, you don't like this film and you regularly knock one out to Batman. Let it lie.

m@tt wrote: i suppose what i'm saying is the religious themes added some weight to the original films. Only if you're religious. If not, they're no more fanciful than Crystal Skull. If you believe in science and aliens this is like hitting the jackpot

I thought The Da Vinci Code read more like a fourth Indiana Jones film than the screenplay that we got, change the setting to the 1950s and there you have it a clever story, a good villain, lots of puzzles, mystery a twist at the end and no E.T.s Indiana Jones And The Secrets Of The Da Vinci Code.

Da B-Meister wrote: StoneGaijin wrote: the ONLY reason for the Dark Knight hype, bar NONE, is the fact that Heath died.

Sure The Dark Knight has beat Star Wars now for the number 2 grossing film of ALL TIME, and it prob will top Titanic's 600million, HOWEVER the hype, is only because Heath is dead.

That has to be one of THE most stupid posts I've read around here, and I've read a great many. There's no denying that Heath's death attributed to more people wanting to check out his last performance......but that is HARDLY the only reason for TDK's monstrous success. Not only does he give a phenomenal performance as the Joker, but the film overall has it all: great writing, great action, great direction, and great acting all-around. It's truly stupid to put the movie's success entirely on one actor's death. I gather StoneGaijin probably has not even seen the film....

highdough wrote: In fact Indiana looks kind of dumb for not figuring that out. Not exactly what you want from your hero. To look dumb. It's not really that he didn't figure it out or was made to look dumb, Indy just didn't buy into it being aliens until the evidence became increasingly irrefutable. There are several times throughout the film when he scoffs at such ideas as extra-terrestrials and E.S.P., which is the reaction that most educated, rational minded people would have. This falls in line with the doubts he initially has about the relics from the first three films, only to a man with the background of this character the phenomena presented in this movie seems a little more oulandish even with all he has seen before in his travels.Quote: And while I understand that Lucas wanted to inject some 50's sci-fi in the movie, I really don't think it worked. I don't think it worked 100% either, and in a previous post I stated I thought they should have done more with it. It's still a fun popcorn movie though and I'm looking forward to picking up the BD when it's released.

Da B-Meister wrote: Right back at you, skippy. Getting some sort of happy tingly feeling in being that way? Matt's right, you're just looking for an argument and it's getting old. We get it, you don't like this film and you regularly knock one out to Batman. Let it lie.

m@tt wrote: i suppose what i'm saying is the religious themes added some weight to the original films. Only if you're religious. If not, they're no more fanciful than Crystal Skull. If you believe in science and aliens this is like hitting the jackpot

Wasn't bashing the film just that theres a religous theme that runs throughout the other films but not here, that makes for a very different film and the alien connection doesn't quite gel for me. There are many artifacts pertaining to religion that are unearthed but not alien teehee, i suppose what i'm saying is the religious themes added some weight to the original films.

Matt wrote: Like Chris said, he didn't know he was looking for aliens and the Crystal Skull was just Lucas' MacGuffin. The fact that aliens are involved in the plot comes from the theory of ancient astronauts in archaeology, which Lucas thought would fit nicely into the screenplay he was writing with the idea of meshing Indiana Jones together with sci-fi films of the '50s.

I'm surprised that so many people fail to see the connection between Indiana Jones and aliens--maybe I just read too many books on Bigfoot, The Bermuda Triangle, and other ancient mysteries growing up.

Seeing the connection and thinking it's stupid are two different things. I think it was obvious to everyone watching that it was all about aliens. That's what the whole beginning was about. In fact Indiana looks kind of dumb for not figuring that out. Not exactly what you want from your hero. To look dumb. And while I understand that Lucas wanted to inject some 50's sci-fi in the movie, I really don't think it worked. And what exactly is the deal with people/things waiting around for a thousand years for Indy to wander in so they can explain everything to him? Did they get that out of the lazy screenwriters handbook? And didn't the movie Mission to Mars do the same thing? It's like they were all sitting around saying:

"Well, we've constructed an intricate mystery here, but now how do we explain it to the audience?"

"Can't we just get one of the aliens to do it?"

"You mean the aliens that have been waiting around in the for a thousand years in the tomb?"

Matt wrote: Da B-Meister wrote: Matt wrote: m@tt wrote: I kept wondering watching the film since Indy is an archaeologist what do aliens have to do with archaeology anyway? Ark of the Covenant and the Grail i can understand but aliens?

Like Chris said, he didn't know he was looking for aliens and the Crystal Skull was just Lucas' MacGuffin. The fact that aliens are involved in the plot comes from the theory of ancient astronauts in archaeology, which Lucas thought would fit nicely into the screenplay he was writing with the idea of meshing Indiana Jones together with sci-fi films of the '50s.

I'm surprised that so many people fail to see the connection between Indiana Jones and aliens--maybe I just read too many books on Bigfoot, The Bermuda Triangle, and other ancient mysteries growing up.

There still really isn't a connection there. Only because you're obtuse, or you're just being blatantly difficult any which way you possibly can regarding this film as if the act of bashing it is some sort of fetish for you.

Right back at you, skippy. Getting some sort of happy tingly feeling in being that way?

Da B-Meister wrote: Matt wrote: m@tt wrote: I kept wondering watching the film since Indy is an archaeologist what do aliens have to do with archaeology anyway? Ark of the Covenant and the Grail i can understand but aliens?

Like Chris said, he didn't know he was looking for aliens and the Crystal Skull was just Lucas' MacGuffin. The fact that aliens are involved in the plot comes from the theory of ancient astronauts in archaeology, which Lucas thought would fit nicely into the screenplay he was writing with the idea of meshing Indiana Jones together with sci-fi films of the '50s.

I'm surprised that so many people fail to see the connection between Indiana Jones and aliens--maybe I just read too many books on Bigfoot, The Bermuda Triangle, and other ancient mysteries growing up.

There still really isn't a connection there. Only because you're obtuse, or you're just being blatantly difficult any which way you possibly can regarding this film as if the act of bashing it is some sort of fetish for you.

lionel wrote: what is with this dark knight bulls**t.... look at the movie and ask yourself, would it have been half as good without the joker?

the movie is no better than batman begins, but add joker too the mix and he takes the movie to a whole new level. any and every scene without him is just fodder and uninteresting things we have seen done in the previous film.

so thats why the dark knight deserves a nice OVERRATED slap to the proverbial face . wake up people.

So you take out a main character, and the movie would suffer. Not sure how that means the movie is overrated. If you take out Han's character in the first three Star Wars movies, then the movie isn't as good. Take out Hannibal from Silence of the Lambs and the movie suffers. Take out Cuba Gooding Jr from Jerry Maguire and the movie is lacking. What exactly is your point? That removing an important main character can hurt a movie?

Matt wrote: m@tt wrote: I kept wondering watching the film since Indy is an archaeologist what do aliens have to do with archaeology anyway? Ark of the Covenant and the Grail i can understand but aliens?

Like Chris said, he didn't know he was looking for aliens and the Crystal Skull was just Lucas' MacGuffin. The fact that aliens are involved in the plot comes from the theory of ancient astronauts in archaeology, which Lucas thought would fit nicely into the screenplay he was writing with the idea of meshing Indiana Jones together with sci-fi films of the '50s.

I'm surprised that so many people fail to see the connection between Indiana Jones and aliens--maybe I just read too many books on Bigfoot, The Bermuda Triangle, and other ancient mysteries growing up.

There still really isn't a connection there. What's next? Have Indy do an archaeological dig in the Sea of Tranquility after being tossed aboard the first manned trip to the moon in 1969?

m@tt wrote: I kept wondering watching the film since Indy is an archaeologist what do aliens have to do with archaeology anyway? Ark of the Covenant and the Grail i can understand but aliens?

Like Chris said, he didn't know he was looking for aliens and the Crystal Skull was just Lucas' MacGuffin. The fact that aliens are involved in the plot comes from the theory of ancient astronauts in archaeology, which Lucas thought would fit nicely into the screenplay he was writing with the idea of meshing Indiana Jones together with sci-fi films of the '50s.

I'm surprised that so many people fail to see the connection between Indiana Jones and aliens--maybe I just read too many books on Bigfoot, The Bermuda Triangle, and other ancient mysteries growing up.

Da B-Meister wrote: Blue-Kal-El wrote: Da B, really, once the nuked fridge thing is over, everything kicks into full gear...just don't start with saying about TDK, which was a disappointment for me, specially for Batman's little (well, huge) Matrix moment, THAT my friend, was disappointing...

No, it doesn't kick into full gear, it kicks into "stupid, boring, uninteresting c**p mode with bad CGI and acting". There was nothing remotely disappointing about TDK. If anything, Spielberg and Lucas now need to bow down to Chris Nolan and be taught how to make an exciting, action-packed movie. Why do people insist on fighting over opinions? You can't prove them - there's no 'right' and 'wrong'. I liked Indy 4, I enjoyed TDK, but I never once thought I was watching anything life changing. It's not even my favourite superhero film, let alone my favourite film of any genre. I even understand what the oher poster said about Gotham - they went for a more realistic design rather than the stylised version in the first film. It could pretty much have been any city. I thought Bale had a better take on Batman in the first film as well. Others disagree, but to argue back and forth about something that you can't prove factually seems a little redundant.

The trouble with this film is that people wanted Indy circa twenty years ago, and it was never going to happen.

""Augmenting" is a light word. Not picking on you, don't get me wrong - but during a few making-of's that I've seen on this movie, it seems that even the jungles had vines and trees added. It was in the augmenting that it went too far, in my estimation."

No offense taken, and I don't mean any of this to sound as "soapbox-ey" as I realize it does.

I was also guilty of thinking that cgi had been used in places where it wasn't. But after reading the "Complete Making Of Indiana Jones" book, I was surprised at how much actually WAS done in a practical manner.

The jungle scenes incorporated a lot of cgi, but again, it was only to augment the existing foilage of a live jungle. This was mainly due to environmental limitations, which prevented them from destroying any part of the jungle. But overall, I thought the "enhancement" worked great- especially at making it feel like a B movie from the 1950s.

Sure, there are still dodgy moments (such as the Tarzan swing), but overall, the film was far more practical than most people seem to realize. A common online complaint was that Spielberg just "green screened the entire thing", but that was nowhere even close to being true.

matt helm wrote: "True but todays cinema is lead by CGI rather than used just as an effect if you know what i mean."

I understand, but I think people are still over-exaggerating the cgi use in Indy 4. The vast majority of it was used to augment existing sets and real life locations- as opposed to creating them outright ala the Star Wars prequels. The problem is that audiences have simply become used to assuming EVERYTHING is cgi.

But they were actually in a real jungle, and Harrison Ford was swinging in a real warehouse. They also built working giant sets for nearly every sequence in the film. This is why the production employed nearly every major soundstage in Hollywood. The 'obelisk' was really a working model. The alien door (w/all the moving parts) was a real creation that worked exactly as it does in the film.

Now obviously, certain elements had to be cgi- such as the A bomb blast or ufo. But these are f/x that would've been done in post-production 20 years ago as well.

Indy 4 simply faced a no win scenario from the beginning. Spielberg knew he had to try and appease fans of the original films, and utilize an old-school approach. But today's audiences expect to see special f/x extravaganzas on par with the Pirates of the Caribbean or Star Wars prequels.

Those films represent the cutting edge of f/x, and utilized roughly 2,000-2,500 digital shots each. By comparison, Indy 4 employed roughly 1/4 of that- or around 450 shots. This was basically what was considered "cutting edge" around ten years ago. So ironically, Indy 4 is the only entry in the series that wasn't able to go all out in its f/x department (relative to where f/x tech was at the time).

"Augmenting" is a light word. Not picking on you, don't get me wrong - but during a few making-of's that I've seen on this movie, it seems that even the jungles had vines and trees added. It was in the augmenting that it went too far, in my estimation. The swordfight between Shia and Cate just looks TOO artificial, like something straight out of the SW prequels you mention.

I think a lot of people were expecting the rough-hewn practicals, myself included. But Shia swinging from vines like he was Tarzan or something? It just didn't look good. There's a certain way that a body moves that CGI makes look too fake. And in that, we were constantly being taken out of the movie - by the ever-increasing amount of "the wow factor" that Lucas feels that he needs to bring to the table.

Say what you will, but I find the CGI of "Jurassic Park" to be much more effective and good - and that movie's 15 years old. It's kind of like the "Matrix" sequels - in an effort to top what's come before, filmmakers feel the need to foist this constant stream of eye-candy in order to keep the audience, while sometimes forgetting that a good story and good characters DO make the difference.

And yes, the CGI in "Pirates" sequels and the SW Prequels completely kinda turned me off. The first "Pirates" movie used the CGI to a great effect, not making that the focal point of the movie. That movie really appealed to me in a way that its sequels could not. And the story did have something to do with it - I guess not everything can be like the Indiana Jones series, with each movie being a self-contained story. Each film in the "Pirates", "Matrix" and "Star Wars" collectives had to draw upon the previous films and try to improve on the formulas.

The thing about having aliens be in the mix in "Crystal Skull" didn't bother me, being a pretty huge "X-Files" fan. I happen to like it when films make mention to the Mayans and the ancient civilizations. However, doing it Lucas' way is just not happening for me, where it seems like he puts more thought into the CGI rather than the performances and the script.

And for the record, I really liked Darabont's unused "Indiana Jones and the City of Gods" screenplay...

StoneGaijin wrote: the ONLY reason for the Dark Knight hype, bar NONE, is the fact that Heath died.

Sure The Dark Knight has beat Star Wars now for the number 2 grossing film of ALL TIME, and it prob will top Titanic's 600million, HOWEVER the hype, is only because Heath is dead.

That has to be one of THE most stupid posts I've read around here, and I've read a great many. There's no denying that Heath's death attributed to more people wanting to check out his last performance......but that is HARDLY the only reason for TDK's monstrous success. Not only does he give a phenomenal performance as the Joker, but the film overall has it all: great writing, great action, great direction, and great acting all-around. It's truly stupid to put the movie's success entirely on one actor's death.

what is with this dark knight bulls**t.... look at the movie and ask yourself, would it have been half as good without the joker?

the movie is no better than batman begins, but add joker too the mix and he takes the movie to a whole new level. any and every scene without him is just fodder and uninteresting things we have seen done in the previous film.

so thats why the dark knight deserves a nice OVERRATED slap to the proverbial face . wake up people.

"True but todays cinema is lead by CGI rather than used just as an effect if you know what i mean."

I understand, but I think people are still over-exaggerating the cgi use in Indy 4. The vast majority of it was used to augment existing sets and real life locations- as opposed to creating them outright ala the Star Wars prequels. The problem is that audiences have simply become used to assuming EVERYTHING is cgi.

But they were actually in a real jungle, and Harrison Ford was swinging in a real warehouse. They also built working giant sets for nearly every sequence in the film. This is why the production employed nearly every major soundstage in Hollywood. The 'obelisk' was really a working model. The alien door (w/all the moving parts) was a real creation that worked exactly as it does in the film.

Now obviously, certain elements had to be cgi- such as the A bomb blast or ufo. But these are f/x that would've been done in post-production 20 years ago as well.

Indy 4 simply faced a no win scenario from the beginning. Spielberg knew he had to try and appease fans of the original films, and utilize an old-school approach. But today's audiences expect to see special f/x extravaganzas on par with the Pirates of the Caribbean or Star Wars prequels.

Those films represent the cutting edge of f/x, and utilized roughly 2,000-2,500 digital shots each. By comparison, Indy 4 employed roughly 1/4 of that- or around 450 shots. This was basically what was considered "cutting edge" around ten years ago. So ironically, Indy 4 is the only entry in the series that wasn't able to go all out in its f/x department (relative to where f/x tech was at the time).

Personally i think Hook was the turning point in Spielbergs career and it's gone down hill ever since and the less said about a certain other director/writer the better.

I remember a time when the dream team of Spielberg and Lucas could produce the most thrilling experience it was possible to have in the cinema. Maybe a bit hard for the younger cinema goers of today to understand.

Blue-Kal-El wrote: For once, I'll agree with you Da B-Meister...and how can somebody say it was excellent when you have the Matrix thing, the choppy editing, the loose subplots, the lack of character development, the horrendously annoying Batman-voice, the incredible (as in NOT believable) Gotham...and you want for Spielberg to bow down to Nolan??

Nolan should've left Batman alone and done a stand alone crime/thriller movie, instead of his "new" Batman experiment...I had been waiting for this movie long before Ledger was announced as the Joker, and when I saw it, I left the theatre disappointed...and the IMDB rating is useless once you have stupid fanboys rating The Godfather a low score to get TDK higher in rank...LAME... However, D, KOTCS is better than TOD...

It's certainly a good thing that TDK had no such "Matrix thing", loose subplots, choppy editing, or lack of character development......that's part of what makes TDK the single best film of the year thus far.

Next time I suggest you watch TDK with your eyes open and without overindulgence in alcohol or mind-altering drugs before-hand. "Not believable" Gotham? What kind of blatantly stupid comment is that to make? It was a city. It wasn't done in cartoon or, like KOTCS, poorly done CGI that was overused, it was a live-action viewing of a real city. What was so "not believable" about that? LOL.....that'll be a good one to hear explained. You're nothing more than one of those who gives a "disappointed" review to an excellent movie just so you can stand apart and draw attention to yourself. You have no legitimate complaint against it. Spielberg is getting sloppy and truly losing his touch as he reaches his twilight years. That can be the only real explanation for the steaming pile of horse c**p he gave us with KOTCS.....where there was NO trace of any of the fun or excitement of the 3 previous films that preceded it. Ol' Steven now has a lot to learn from Nolan on writing and directing a film for this century.

Point of fact: KOTCS is the WORST (by a large margin) of all the Indy films. It can't even touch ToD.

Da B-Meister wrote: thedaz wrote: Don't get me wrong, The Dark Knight was excellent, but it wasn't as good as the hype.

No....it only FAR exceeded the hype.

For once, I'll agree with you Da B-Meister...and how can somebody say it was excellent when you have the Matrix thing, the choppy editing, the loose subplots, the lack of character development, the horrendously annoying Batman-voice, the incredible (as in NOT believable) Gotham...and you want for Spielberg to bow down to Nolan??

Nolan should've left Batman alone and done a stand alone crime/thriller movie, instead of his "new" Batman experiment...I had been waiting for this movie long before Ledger was announced as the Joker, and when I saw it, I left the theatre disappointed...and the IMDB rating is useless once you have stupid fanboys rating The Godfather a low score to get TDK higher in rank...LAME...

matt helm wrote: "I'm glad there was no CGI in Raiders just good old fashion stunts"

CGI was still in its infancy back then, but it didn't stop them from using it to kill off Walter Donovan (Last Crusade). The Indiana Jones films always employed state of the art f/x. It's not like they were limited to techniques from the 1960s.

True but todays cinema is lead by CGI rather than used just as an effect if you know what i mean. Raiders would be very different if it was inundated with CGI, we may yet see it if Lucas fancies the special edition treatment.

CGI was still in its infancy back then, but it didn't stop them from using it to kill off Walter Donovan (Last Crusade). The Indiana Jones films always employed state of the art f/x. It's not like they were limited to techniques from the 1960s.

I'm glad there was no CGI in Raiders just good old fashion stunts and a good old fashion adventure, thats the hallmark of a good Indy film. Is it just me or does the truck in the jungle scene look a bit strange when you compare it to the truck scene in Raiders.

Blue-Kal-El wrote: Da B, really, once the nuked fridge thing is over, everything kicks into full gear...just don't start with saying about TDK, which was a disappointment for me, specially for Batman's little (well, huge) Matrix moment, THAT my friend, was disappointing...

No, it doesn't kick into full gear, it kicks into "stupid, boring, uninteresting c**p mode with bad CGI and acting". There was nothing remotely disappointing about TDK. If anything, Spielberg and Lucas now need to bow down to Chris Nolan and be taught how to make an exciting, action-packed movie.

Da B, really, once the nuked fridge thing is over, everything kicks into full gear...just don't start with saying about TDK, which was a disappointment for me, specially for Batman's little (well, huge) Matrix moment, THAT my friend, was disappointing...

Blue-Kal-El wrote: After the first ten-fifteen minutes are done, you are treated with a great kind of popcorn eye candy entertainment, better than Temple...

Not by a long shot is any of that true. For a movie that Spielberg himself said was "for the fans", basically the fans got force-fed a bowl of steaming elephant dung. This movie was insultingly bad and as far from entertaining as a movie can be.

Well, I'm just gonna go for the 1 disc. I like the cover art alot better and, they acually aren't greedy with it. I mean, the 1 disc sounds like it has two decent special featurettes, and, that's good enough for me.

"I'm so sick of reading all the bashing. It's Popcorn summer entertainment... This wasn't Gandhi or Amadeus. Jesus, some of you need to lighten up when watching summer movies."

In many ways I agree with you Don. I often tire of the hatred that spreads across the Internet every time ANY movie comes out these days.

But as an objective film viewer, as well as Raiders Of The Lost Ark being my favourite movie, I can’t deny Crystal Skull was a bitter disappointment.

Coming from once great film makers as Spielberg and Lucas, it comes off as a lazy, patronising, limp piece of film making. They are both past their creative prime, their artistic flames have dimmed, and this movie proves it more than any other.

People criticise the Star Wars prequels, but at least they had scale, scope and style. In terms of design, the prequels are quite remarkable. Crystal Skull has virtually nothing to laud or compliment. Nothing I can think of.

Actually, I thought Harrison Ford and Shia LaBeouf were very good. It wasn't their fault. It was everything else. All the criticisms we've read in negative reviews many times over, that need not be repeated.

I will watch this on DVD one more time, just to see if it was bad as when I first saw it. But I have my doubts.

Why didn't you like the ending? I mean, UFOs exist, the Ark of Covenant had its power and so did the glowing rocks in Temple...and real is the Holy Grail...the thing is that you who didn't like the ending, didn't want Indy to grow, you didn't want times to change...

After the first ten-fifteen minutes are done, you are treated with a great kind of popcorn eye candy entertainment, better than Temple...

Matt wrote: highdough wrote: One thing I didn't like about the alien stuff is it's simply not archaeology. "Chariots of the Gods, man. They practically own South America. I mean, they taught the Incas everything they know."

The movie is about the theory of ancient astronauts, and that is the tie back to archaeology. Erich von Daniken's [i]Chariots of the Gods[/] is an interesting read.

Oh, I know about von Daniken. The guy is a kook. I;m all for alternative theories but I put von Daniken in the same category as literal creationists. Both will ignore all evidence to the contrary in order to believe their loopy theories. An alternative theorist who I do find interesting is Graham Hancock who doesn't make the massive leaps that people like von Daniken do.

Jurgie1979 wrote: I still love it, though; far more than Last Crusade, which has always been my least favorite, if for nothing else than it has a terribly lame villain (get back in your AT-AT, General Veers!), and the whole Knight sequence. I mean, you honestly hate the fridge and the tarzan scenes more than a 1000 year old Knight who speaks PERFECT modern English? And who apparently wears his chain mail ALL DAY LONG, just waiting for someone to come and take his place? Good god I hate that whole sequence.

I'll take an entire movie of Shia swinging from vines rather than one "He choose poorly."

Ya, that ending nearly ruined the film for me. I liked the rest of it enough that I can overlook the dumb ending, to a degree. Still, I've never understood how people can love it so much. I thought it was good, but definitely not great. With the latest one, there were so many problems throughout, that the ending simply put it over the top (or down the drain). Again, I didn't hate it, but I wouldn't watch it again.

Personally, I'm a fan of the teaser poster (the 2-disc artwork) - but in this context, the theatrical one-sheet looks fantastic!

You know, with a little time since the release, the more I think about this movie, the more I've come to see the problems with it.

I still love it, though; far more than Last Crusade, which has always been my least favorite, if for nothing else than it has a terribly lame villain (get back in your AT-AT, General Veers!), and the whole Knight sequence. I mean, you honestly hate the fridge and the tarzan scenes more than a 1000 year old Knight who speaks PERFECT modern English? And who apparently wears his chain mail ALL DAY LONG, just waiting for someone to come and take his place? Good god I hate that whole sequence.

I'll take an entire movie of Shia swinging from vines rather than one "He choose poorly."

Still - I think people are right to claim that this was, at heart, a George Lucas film and not a Steven Spielberg film.

But I'm not a Lucas-hater (I'm also one of those outcasts who will insist until my dying day that Attack of the Clones is 10X the movie that Jedi is), so I didn't find even the bad things in the movie too insufferable. I just wish he'd stop thinking like a five year old and start making movies for everyone again.

"One thing I didn't like about the alien stuff is it's simply not archaeology. Raiders and Last Crusade had to do with archaeology, and since Indy is an archaeologist, it made obvious sense."

I think this is probably the biggest misconception about the series. People don't seem to realize that the films also gave a very pulpy spin to the religious/historical aspects as well. For example, the depiction of the Grail in Last Crusade has very little basis in historical or religious fact. They just kind've mixed in some bits from the Arthur legend and made up their own set of rules for how the Grail should work. The entire depiction of the Grail is pretty silly once you actually stop to examine it, but most people just take it at face value. The same could be said of the Sankara stones or Ark of the Covenant.

Ironically, there's probably more legends and history in "Kingdom" than in either of the previous sequels. You've got Francisco de Orellana, the El Dorado myth, Area 51/Roswell, the Nazca Lines, etc. They simply mixed in a bit more modern day myths, which seems to have caused a problem for some.

I always considered Indy to be closer to something like Doc Savage than anything else. He's clearly intended as a pulp hero, yet many still assume he's supposed to be grounded in our everyday reality. But I think that idea was refuted as soon as the Ark was opened.

highdough wrote: One thing I didn't like about the alien stuff is it's simply not archaeology. "Chariots of the Gods, man. They practically own South America. I mean, they taught the Incas everything they know."

The movie is about the theory of ancient astronauts, and that is the tie back to archaeology. Erich von Daniken's [i]Chariots of the Gods[/] is an interesting read.

I didn't hate the movie, but considering the time, talent and money involved, I was very disappointed. I had it rated below Hancock and above Jumper and 10,000 BC. Basically a mediocre-to-half-decent movie.

One thing I didn't like about the alien stuff is it's simply not archaeology. Raiders and Last Crusade had to do with archaeology, and since Indy is an archaeologist, it made obvious sense. As a history buff, one of the things I enjoyed about the films were the sense of history each one had. There was a sense of connection to the past.

Another problem I had is that characters never really made sense. Indiana never seems to worry about the fact that his traitorous friend keeps switching sides. I mean, is Indiana really that stupid, because that's what he comes off as. And what exactly is the purpose of the `friend' anyway? When he first betrays Indiana, we know nothing about him, so it's not like it's a big shock. Plus, we really only know his as a traitor, so when he says to Indiana he is a double agent (or whatever), it's not believable at all, especially considering that he easily could have got Indiana killed earlier.

Speaking of which, what is the purpose of Marion, except to bring her back? She is not given much to do. And is it supposed to be a surprise that Shia is Indiana's son, because it's not.

I'm not going to talk much about the ending, but there are far too many things that simply didn't make sense.

As I said before, I wasn't expecting a masterpiece, but it's simply not a well written movie. Frank Darabont's version is a little better, but there were some fundamental problems that Lucas insisted on that, I felt, killed the movie.

Why is it that the artwork on the single disc release is usually better than the 2-disc? I'd much rather have the poster art than Indy by himself. It reminds me of Superbad where with the single disc you get the poster art and with the 2-disc you get close-ups of their heads. Bass ackwards, if you ask me.

And I don't get all the hate for this movie, either. It wasn't until this year that I saw the original films in their entirety, so I suppose I'm coming at this from a different perspective. I thought it was a fun time. Each of the movies is a bit ridiculous in its own way.

Da B-Meister wrote: This lousy movie can't even touch 'Temple of Doom'. It was so bad, I wouldn't make my dog watch it. There was no fun in this movie and no sense of excitement or danger by any means. Blanchett's performance was nothing more than someone imitating the Natasha role from the Rocky & Bullwinkle Show.

Yup, that'd be it (though the site doesn't show if it has that different coverart). Don't think I'm gonna dish out the extra $25 for the skull, though. Sorry, BestBuy.

And I just wanna say, since I didn't yet, I think that this movie is great; its a fun adventure film, like the other three, and I agree with those who have said that aliens are no more or less ridiculous than the Grail, Ark or still-beating hearts being ripped out and set on fire. There were a few things that I didn't care for too much (namely the Superfridge and "It told me to&quot, but overall I love this movie as much as the first three.

Emil Ryderup wrote: The problems isnt the aliens, it's the weak last act and bad cgi. What are you referring to when you say bad CGI? I'm actually interested. Most people cite the forest scene, but little do they know...

mc_serenity wrote: Thank you, that was the point I was trying to get across. Some people just wanted a rehash of "Raiders" and "Last Crusade" (Nazis and all)... what's wrong with something else for a change?

Exactly. Each movie not only feels like a pulp novel, but goes off in its own direction as well. I really like that about the series.

Chris Gould wrote: I don't really get all the animosity towards this film. It's nowhere near as bad as some people are suggesting with the usual hyperbole of 'worst film ever' etc. It's like people were expecting the second coming of Christ or something. It's perfectly in keeping with the tone of the older films. Aliens are no more out there than any of the religious stuff in the first three films.

Thank you, that was the point I was trying to get across. Some people just wanted a rehash of "Raiders" and "Last Crusade" (Nazis and all)... what's wrong with something else for a change?

that1guy wrote: Wonder if it will have DTS sound on the Blu-Ray (Spielberg is a huge fan!) However, none of the Indy DVD's have DTS, so maybe it's a Lucas decision. DTS is largely irrelevant in BD. As long as it has a lossless/uncompressed soundtrack of some kind, it's fine.

I don't really get all the animosity towards this film. It's nowhere near as bad as some people are suggesting with the usual hyperbole of 'worst film ever' etc. It's like people were expecting the second coming of Christ or something. It's perfectly in keeping with the tone of the older films. Aliens are no more out there than any of the religious stuff in the first three films. The only person who seems to have got the point is Matt.

This lousy movie can't even touch 'Temple of Doom'. It was so bad, I wouldn't make my dog watch it. There was no fun in this movie and no sense of excitement or danger by any means. Blanchett's performance was nothing more than someone imitating the Natasha role from the Rocky & Bullwinkle Show.

This was miles better than "Temple of Doom" and just as much as fun as the other two. The ending disappointed me, though. Shia was fun to watch, Ford was great as always, it was great to see Karen Allen back, but Cate Blanchett stole the show. Amazing performance by her.

I will definitely get this on Blu-ray, and will eagerly await the news as to when the original trilogy will be released on Blu-ray.

Delta_FX wrote: Gonna skip this. Not because the most was bad(it's really just the ending that ruined it for me) but because I'm gonna wait for a box set with all 4 movies.

Also available from the 14th October will be The Complete Adventure Collection, which will include the first three films plus the two-disc Special Edition DVD of the latest installment. This will retail at $89.99.

strangely the paramount 2-disc sets look worse artwork and stuff wise than the 1-disc releases. same applys for the recent iron man artwork. yet we have no choice if we want the extras to buy the 2-disc sets. must be a mainstream consumer appeal thing, use your best artwork covers for more mass appeal sales.

Looking at the covers, I would rather have the 1-disc house as art for the 2-disc. I think studios do this to balance it out: 1-disc: the downside is it's only one disc, but you get better art of the two. 2-discs: you may get two discs, but the art isn't superior of the other.

AND, thank god for no FULL SCREEN this time around. I think we are coming close to the day when they will NO LONGER make full screen DVD's, it is slowly happening. Maybe next year when the whole digital switch happens, it will help us remove full screen from DVD's.

And guess what, all them people who HATED black bars on the top of the movies on there 4:3 TV's, well they are now gonna have black bars on the side of all there movies with half the movie gone on there new LCD widescreen tv's. lol

khelinski wrote: But here is a guy that still films with the good old 35mm, and is reluctant to film anything in digital (and word is, he was reluctant on this film being presented in digital protectors).

In the weeks leading up to the film's release, I heard that Spielberg wanted only 35mm prints shipped to theaters equipped to show them and not allow digital projection (or any digital copies to be made), but Paramount overruled him.

This is easily one of the most disappointing films I have experienced (due to the obvious expectation of a STELLAR film), yet for some reason I know I'll have to buy it! It'll be the 1-disc because I don't care how much work went into making this mediocredy, and the art is nicer!

I will get the two-disc. The film was disappointing. LC was way-better than KOTCS. Even Young Indy was better than KOTCS (Young Indy was fun and full of history).

I just wonder what Lucasfilm would get if they got a really great DVD producer to produce feature for this film. The extras on some Lucasfilm discs aren't bad, but I see other films on DVDs blow them away in the extras dept due to greater DVD producers).

So... is this two-disc going to be like the previous Spielberg multi-discs of Munich, The Terminal, and War of the Worlds, in that there are only a handful of them made?

Seriously... The Best Buy near me got three copies of the Munich two-disc. Three. And I've only seen the Terminal 3-disc once in person, and that was at someone's house who was a collector. Never again.

I'm half and half on Darabont's script. There are bits I love, bits I think weren't very good (did we really need to reprise fortune and glory from Temple of Doom?). He nailed Marion... as though she hadn't changed a single iota in 15 years since Raiders, which is kind of silly. Still, I guess that's better than the stand-around-and-look-happy version in Crystal Skull.

That said, I liked both Spalko and Mutt, and neither was in Darabont's draft.

Am I the only one who thought they didn't go far enough with the whole '50s sci-fi/atomic age angle?

I totally got what Lucas was trying to do in playing up the fact that this Indiana Jones lives in the 1950s and so the movie contained some of the things that make the sci-fi and atomic age movies of that era such an indelible part of the Saturday matinees of the '50s, while still holding on to the roots of what influenced the orginal Indy movies as well. I just think that if they were going to do it, go all out--instead of the ants we got in the film, how about giant ants reminiscent of THEM!? How about a potential saucer invasion ala Earth Vs. The Flying Saucers by returning ancient astronauts that Indy has to save the world from?

Judging by the reactions here I guess I am. Fun movie...I wasn't expecting The Second Coming and I was thoroughly entertained for two-hours.

Here's something to chew on:

How about instead of a refridgerator saving Indy's skin, it's the Ark of the Covenant that saves him by some divine intervention?

Russians see it in the warehouse, think it's interesting and load it on to a truck...same truck is searching for Indy in the test village...Russians speed off after hearing sirens leaving Indy behind (as in the movie), only the Ark falls off the back of the truck...Indy, seeing no other alternative gives a smirk and a cock of the head and figures why the hell not, climbing in to the Ark. Bomb goes boom, Ark sails miles away, and Indy climbs out, saved by the grace of God.

What I'm sick of is excusing bad filmmaking because it's simply entertainment as if they are somehow mutually exclusive. Raiders was a good film and entertaining as hell. Now I didn't think this last one was horrible, but there were far too many "well, that's just stupid" moments that by the end, the movie had lost me (as a viewer).

The biggest problems were with the script, which I think is ridiculous since they had so long to get it writer. I don't fully blame David Koepp, as he was simply following orders and did the best with what he had. The main problem is the story is not very compelling. Everyone knows about the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail, but few had heard of the crystal skulls, and as far as I know, none have been dated beyond the 19th century and all are in the shape of a human skull. They're just not that much of a mystery and certainly not an archaeological one.

There were lots of other script problems, too, that ruined the film for me. I didn't love Last Crusade (the final act was stupid, I thought- so Lancelot, or whoever, was waiting there for over a thousand years???), but I thought it was much better than this one. The less said about the second the better.

As I said I don't expect a masterpiece and saying it's not Gandhi is obvious. No one expects Gandhi, but is it too much to expect a good film? Don't excuse bad filmmaking because it's not supposed to be an Academy Award winner

I'll be honest: I've never seen any of the original Indy movies, even though I own the 2003 boxed set (still haven't watched them, but I'm hoping that eventually I'll find time to). But I saw this movie in theaters and loved it! I was so surprised at all the negative reviews for it. I'll definitely be picking up the 2-disc.

Sure the movie is only adequate but I am happy to add the 2-disc edition to my collection. Silly as it may sound, I'm also relieved to see that the trailers are included. Call me nit picky but I hate when marketing materials are not included.

If anything, we now need a major apology from Spielberg/Lucas for this unentertaining dreck of a movie they gave us in KOTCS.

Whatever.

Regardless whether people liked IJ4 or not (a lot side with the latter), disappointment was inevitable in some degree with all the years between sequels building up impossible-to-meet expectations. Anyone who went to see IJ4 in theaters expecting an instant classic like "Raiders" deserved to be disappointed.

It's the rule of thumb of movie-making: the vast majority of sequels are almost never as good (let alone better) than the originals. There are exceptions, of course, but the vast majority disappoint.

I won't argue that, but do feel this film would be slightly better had Darabont's script been used instead of thrown away like it did (note: Spielberg/Ford loved his script, Lucas, the screenwriter for Attack of the Clones!, did not!). If you read his script, while it isn't perfect by any means (and with a little fine tuning, could have been even better), it did felt more to the tone of the previous three films, and it would have been more well liked than the final product we have here.

Sure, you would be right - it would still be divided, since people will hold this film up against the unbeatable Raiders (or trilogy, for that matter), but once again - it would have been a better film, overall.

And for whoever aruged the debate about use of CGI then-versus-now, I disagree with that, simply because they did use CGI back then (wasn't perfect by any means, but computer effects were used back then, and as a matter of fact - they used effects as a tool, rather than a plot device).

The resentment now is, and why many film buffs debate it - is when you use the quantities of CGI nowadays, you take away a natural feel of the film. A good example is the Star Wars original trilogy has a natural, lived-in feel. The prequels, however, doesn't. The scenery looks just too perfect, and the actors in front of it looks like cutaways. And some scenes felt like that in Indy IV.

Now, take somebody like Spielberg. He isn't all innocent on poor use of CGI (ET 20th, for example). But here is a guy that still films with the good old 35mm, and is reluctant to film anything in digital (and word is, he was reluctant on this film being presented in digital protectors).

Here is also a guy that cherishes film flaws, and creates many stories where effects blend in the real world. That's why many people hold him very highly. He is still one of the rare ones that makes entertaining (and thought provoking) films, blending many styles - but keeping his own in tact.

Why many people are disappointed with this film, is it rarely feels like a Spielberg film. And someone already pointed out very boldly, and clearly, regarding who truly was in charge of this film - just by the first second this film starts...

If anything, we now need a major apology from Spielberg/Lucas for this unentertaining dreck of a movie they gave us in KOTCS.

Whatever.

Regardless whether people liked IJ4 or not (a lot side with the latter), disappointment was inevitable in some degree with all the years between sequels building up impossible-to-meet expectations. Anyone who went to see IJ4 in theaters expecting an instant classic like "Raiders" deserved to be disappointed.

It's the rule of thumb of movie-making: the vast majority of sequels are almost never as good (let alone better) than the originals. There are exceptions, of course, but the vast majority disappoint.

The CGI was horrid, simply put. Nothing was well-balance. I had heard that the jungle sequence was intended to have less CGI - and they filled in real location. But Lucas insisted, and there we have it - a silly sword fight in the jungles with the worse blended of CGI since the stampede sequence in King Kong.

But my biggest gripe is the use of Karen Allen. Frank Darabont's script got her character down to the T. The very first scene with Indy and Marion, she punches him in the face. True to the character.

The final product, on the other hand, never had the integrity of her character. She was just a smiling t**t!

I was fine with the sci-fi element, but the CGI and the poor use of Marion killed it for me. And I am the biggest Spielberg fan of them all. For a good example I thought War of the Worlds derserve the best effects at the Oscars that year over King Kong (which won).

There was nothing wrong with King Kong, overall. But there were many sloppy effects. War of the Worlds, on the other hand, flawed film with flawless effects. The tripods balanced very well in the reality setting Spielberg set his film in. It was very believable, and ultimately lead to an intense journey.

Indy IV was poorly executed and edited. The script was sloppy, and the performance was even sloppier. For some, it did match the tone of the first three movies. For others, it didn't. I am with those that beleive the film never matched the tone of the first three films. And it was obvious with the tug-of-war between Spielberg and Lucas over the yesteryear versus the future of the filming style. And that truly is what killed the experience of the film, which is why you have more resentment than love.

did i just read someone say they didnt need CGI for the first 3 movies? implying they had the choice? because trust me, had CGI existed back then in the state it is now, they WOULD have used it.

it gets old seeing people cry over CGI when the technology has been a mainstream use for almost 20yrs now, get over it...its part of the "FX arsenal". i wonder if people in the 80s complained over all the blue screen and stop motion use because "movies in the 60s didnt need that" lol

For those of you who found Shia as Tarzan and Jones surviving with a fridge, but did find Batman having his little Matrix moment, and his Air Force rescue moment, you are such hypocrites.

Anyways, nice 2-disc artwork, it really shines having Indy by himself...the single disc artwork is very busy...

Great popcorn movie, after the first 10-15 minutes (whatever happened to Indy being chased for being a so called communist? Another subplot gone like in DK), it's more enjoyable than most of the summer blockbusters...

mc_serenity wrote: Da-B-Meister, do you always have to put down opinions that don't reflect your own? If you didn't like the movie, that's fine. Just don't keep reiterating it in each post. To me, I see KOTCS as an apology for the third film, as LC felt like a rehash of "Raiders" (with the '30s locale, Biblical object and all). KOTCS felt at least semi-original with moving the time and place to the 1950s and moving it into the sci-fi realm partially. And those mishaps such as Shia's "Tarzan" scene and Indy surviving a nuclear explosion hidden in a lead-lined refrigerator are pretty minor, IMO.

Just do us all a favor and shut your mouth. I can express my opinion on the movie as often as I wish. You don't like it? Don't read it. Skip over it. Your whining about it accomplishes nothing. I'll reiterate my dislike of the movie if I please.

If anything, we now need a major apology from Spielberg/Lucas for this unentertaining dreck of a movie they gave us in KOTCS.

mc_serenity wrote: Da-B-Meister, do you always have to put down opinions that don't reflect your own? If you didn't like the movie, that's fine. Just don't keep reiterating it in each post.

To me, I see KOTCS as an apology for the third film, as LC felt like a rehash of "Raiders" (with the '30s locale, Biblical object and all). KOTCS felt at least semi-original with moving the time and place to the 1950s and moving it into the sci-fi realm partially. And those mishaps such as Shia's "Tarzan" scene and Indy surviving a nuclear explosion hidden in a lead-lined refrigerator are pretty minor, IMO.

That was not a minor mishap. Under most circumstances, a person would have been burned and crushed from that explosion. Even if that person somehow survived that explosion, he/she would have been exposed to fatal amount of radiation after he/she got out of the refrigerator.

Anyways, count me in as another disappointed hater of this movie. I'll be waiting for the inevitable BR release of first three movies. I'm hoping that each title is available separately so I can keep this abomination away from my collection.

The standard DVD 1-disc artwork looks tremendously better. I think it encapsulates the spirit of the Indy films way more, from the classic "storybook" poster art to the "serial adventure" vibe of the spine. I agree with whoever said it would be perfect as a slip cover over the BD art shown - the best of both worlds, so to speak...

Da-B-Meister, do you always have to put down opinions that don't reflect your own? If you didn't like the movie, that's fine. Just don't keep reiterating it in each post.

To me, I see KOTCS as an apology for the third film, as LC felt like a rehash of "Raiders" (with the '30s locale, Biblical object and all). KOTCS felt at least semi-original with moving the time and place to the 1950s and moving it into the sci-fi realm partially. And those mishaps such as Shia's "Tarzan" scene and Indy surviving a nuclear explosion hidden in a lead-lined refrigerator are pretty minor, IMO.

Matt Thompson wrote: The CGI ants were actually pretty wonderful. They looked as real as they possibly could have. Same with the finale -- just because you don't like what's happening doesn't mean the effect itself was pretty incredible, with the valley and such.

The jungle chase bothered me more than anything FX-wise.

I honestly don't get how anyone can like this film more than Last Crusade. It's essentially Last Crusade with a bigger cast of characters and less focus on Indy (and I say that as someone who liked KOTCS).

Quote: - Asinine idea of adding a sci-fi mix to the series when it felt completely out of place and touch with Indy and the other films.

Yeah, 'cause a murderous Ark of the Covenant, dueling Hindu Gods, and a thousand year old knight were totally believable. But throw in aliens and it's too far.

I saw this movie twice in theaters within 13 hours - once at the opening night midnight show, and once an 11:20 showing hours later; what I found kind of annoying about this whole thing was all the CGI. The action in the previous movies didn't have to be CGI-enhanced - therefore, making it tons more believable. At least most of the action in the previous films was rooted in some kind of reality. Granted, the bluescreen fall from the cliff in "Temple of Doom" was slightly sucky, but still. I could believe it.

Another thing that annoys me is that the model that Lucas and Spielberg were chasing were the older Saturday afternoon serials. The other movies had the distinct feel of those serials - there was no such feel here. It was just too much action, not enough suspense or build.

And I kind of found Shia to be endearing - the motorcycle chase was pretty good, mostly unaided by CGI. That was pretty much the only action piece I liked in the whole thing.

But here's the problem: Lucas wanted to take it in one direction, Spielberg wanted to stay true to the character. And if you really wanted to know who won that fight, it was really easy to tell, at least for the US viewers. Usually, when the previous Indiana Jones movies started, we got the Paramount Pictures logo first, which fades into a mountain of some type, followed by "Paramount Pictures Presents" and THEN "A Lucasfilm Ltd. Production". In this film, the first thing you saw was the huge, green LUCASFILM logo, THEN followed by the Paramount/anthill thing.

However, I still enjoyed the little bits and pieces of this movie, and I will definitely be completing my collection with the 2-disc version of this. Don't own a BR-DVD yet, but will soon enough. And I love the cover art - the posters were fine enough.

Matt Thompson wrote: The CGI ants were actually pretty wonderful. They looked as real as they possibly could have. Same with the finale -- just because you don't like what's happening doesn't mean the effect itself was pretty incredible, with the valley and such. The jungle chase bothered me more than anything FX-wise. Yeah, 'cause a murderous Ark of the Covenant, dueling Hindu Gods, and a thousand year old knight were totally believable. But throw in aliens and it's too far.

There was nothing 'wonderful' about those ants. It was a stupid idea altogether and poorly executed with the bad CGI. The whole ending with the disappearing valley was too "Mummy Returns"-esque for my taste.....and that was a pretty lousy movie with bad CGI as well. Exactly right, though.....when you throw in space aliens and a sci-fi touch to Indiana Jones, you HAVE gone too far. It was utterly ridiculous and completely disappointing. And to add insult to injury, Spielberg is quoted as saying that this was a "film for the fans".

JackJackMN wrote: disneyfreak* wrote: wow.. all of the box art are the same as the movie posters... how ridiculous that is. you would expect a mmovie that made over $700 million worldwide would get a different box art than the posters.. although deeply disappointed with the cover art an awesome movie. but come on change the cover art for christ sake..

What is wrong with people, they ALWAYS b***h they don;t use the original poster art, then what happens, they USE the original poster art and people b***h.

I am glad that they are using it, Drew Struzan is the best movie poster artist to ever live. HE has made some of the most iconic posters ever.

I agree. I was like "Huh?" after reading that first post. For years people moan about the DVD art not matching the poster art, and then here we have one that does, someone finds fault in it.

I swear, just goes to show you that no matter what you do, you'll never make everyone happy....unless of course you're a Democratic politician, in then which case, you'll bend over backwards to be everything to everyone.

I was really enjoying this film until the last third became very predictable and not very inline with the overall Indiana Jones series, even if this is a 50s Jones. But I'd say I enjoyed it about the same as Temple of Doom although I even prefer that one to this new one. The problem was the script and the way it would wink to the audience way too much and not take itself seriosuly. I will definitely be getting the packed 2-Disc edition and I think the coverart for both editions are very very good.

The CGI ants were actually pretty wonderful. They looked as real as they possibly could have. Same with the finale -- just because you don't like what's happening doesn't mean the effect itself was pretty incredible, with the valley and such.

The jungle chase bothered me more than anything FX-wise.

I honestly don't get how anyone can like this film more than Last Crusade. It's essentially Last Crusade with a bigger cast of characters and less focus on Indy (and I say that as someone who liked KOTCS).

Quote: - Asinine idea of adding a sci-fi mix to the series when it felt completely out of place and touch with Indy and the other films.

Yeah, 'cause a murderous Ark of the Covenant, dueling Hindu Gods, and a thousand year old knight were totally believable. But throw in aliens and it's too far.

mc_serenity wrote: I really don't get the hate for this flick. Shia was grossly miscast, but otherwise the film was a huge improvement after the uninspired "Last Crusade." (What is with Spielberg's obsession with Shia LaBoeuf anyway? He's not that great of an actor.)

As for people complaining about the sci-fi aspects of it, well since they placed the storyline in the 1950s, isn't that inevitable? The alien aspects is just as "plausible" as the Ark of the Covenant that make Nazis explode or a Thuggee cult that uses human hearts to worship the god Kali.

Indy 4 was fun, and while it won't win any awards it was a lot better than I anticipated. And they did do something right by bringing Karen Allen back from "Raiders" and resolving that plot point at the end.

And I'm glad to see Paramount is also offering up their third 2008 hit in widescreen only, with the GOOD cover art. The only thing that would've sealed a purchase would've been an isolated score option since there was some GREAT music that wasn't included on the soundtrack album.

Let's see.....how and where do we begin to count the myriads of ways in which this movie COMPLETELY SUCKED?

- Absolutely no sense of fun. - Absolutely no sense of our characters being in any real danger. - Shia's "tarzan" scene. - Karen Allen's idiotic "I'm just glad to have a job" smile plastered on her face the whole time. - Asinine idea of adding a sci-fi mix to the series when it felt completely out of place and touch with Indy and the other films. - Some truly terrible CGI - prairie dogs, monkeys, ants, entire finale.

disneyfreak* wrote: wow.. all of the box art are the same as the movie posters... how ridiculous that is. you would expect a mmovie that made over $700 million worldwide would get a different box art than the posters.. although deeply disappointed with the cover art an awesome movie. but come on change the cover art for christ sake..

Would you rather have the ghastly photoshopped style covers that (dis)graced the DVD covers of the Star Wars movies on DVD?

Drew Struzan's artwork is just wonderful and we're glad that it is featuring on the covers - it's just a shame that the teaser poster is on the Blu-Ray sleeve.

2-disc all the way. I really had a good time watching this in the theatre. I thought it was a fun despite some of it's flaws. I'm so sick of reading all the bashing. It's Popcorn summer entertainment....This wasn't Gandhi or Amadeus, Jesus, some of you need to lighten up when watching summer movies.

I really don't get the hate for this flick. Shia was grossly miscast, but otherwise the film was a huge improvement after the uninspired "Last Crusade." (What is with Spielberg's obsession with Shia LaBoeuf anyway? He's not that great of an actor.)

As for people complaining about the sci-fi aspects of it, well since they placed the storyline in the 1950s, isn't that inevitable? The alien aspects is just as "plausible" as the Ark of the Covenant that make Nazis explode or a Thuggee cult that uses human hearts to worship the god Kali.

Indy 4 was fun, and while it won't win any awards it was a lot better than I anticipated. And they did do something right by bringing Karen Allen back from "Raiders" and resolving that plot point at the end.

And I'm glad to see Paramount is also offering up their third 2008 hit in widescreen only, with the GOOD cover art. The only thing that would've sealed a purchase would've been an isolated score option since there was some GREAT music that wasn't included on the soundtrack album.

MrSmearkase wrote: Depending on the special features, I may trade in my old box set of the original three, as I can't in good conscience sit this alone next to the neatly kept box set.

well if you have that original collection that had the 4th bonus disc, you could always remove that and place part 4 in there.

oh and i know its just the SRP so it'll likely be much less in stores but 29.99$ for a 1 disc movie with barely any extras? and 39.99 for the 2 disc dvd edition? they really wanna overprice because of the name huh. lol

You know, i really liked this movie. I thought it fit the tone and style of the previous 3 films. People just had to high of expectations. thats why everyone hates it. but as for a 5th film, no. we dont need another one. Lucus should try to think of something original rather than digging into old franchises.

disneyfreak* wrote: wow.. all of the box art are the same as the movie posters... how ridiculous that is. you would expect a mmovie that made over $700 million worldwide would get a different box art than the posters.. although deeply disappointed with the cover art an awesome movie. but come on change the cover art for christ sake..It's horrible when studios create new art for DVD because it's almost always photoshopped c**p. There is no reason any movie shouldn't use the poster art for the DVD, and in fact, it's almost invariably better.

nefilim wrote: disneyfreak* wrote: wow.. all of the box art are the same as the movie posters... how ridiculous that is. you would expect a mmovie that made over $700 million worldwide would get a different box art than the posters.. although deeply disappointed with the cover art an awesome movie. but come on change the cover art for christ sake..

why is that ridiculous ? anyway, box art does not matter to me - only the film. havent seen this so ... gonna be blind buy, I quess...

update : found this on usa today :

A DVD boxed set with all four movies also will be available.

Paramount and Lucasfilm have not yet announced when the first three movies will be released on Blu-ray.

Depending on the special features, I may trade in my old box set of the original three, as I can't in good conscience sit this alone next to the neatly kept box set.

disneyfreak* wrote: wow.. all of the box art are the same as the movie posters... how ridiculous that is. you would expect a mmovie that made over $700 million worldwide would get a different box art than the posters.. although deeply disappointed with the cover art an awesome movie. but come on change the cover art for christ sake..

wow this is a first, somebody who's complaing because the box art IS the movie posters? its usually the other way around. lol

disneyfreak* wrote: wow.. all of the box art are the same as the movie posters... how ridiculous that is. you would expect a mmovie that made over $700 million worldwide would get a different box art than the posters.. although deeply disappointed with the cover art an awesome movie. but come on change the cover art for christ sake..

why is that ridiculous ? anyway, box art does not matter to me - only the film. havent seen this so ... gonna be blind buy, I quess...

update : found this on usa today :

A DVD boxed set with all four movies also will be available.

Paramount and Lucasfilm have not yet announced when the first three movies will be released on Blu-ray.

disneyfreak* wrote: wow.. all of the box art are the same as the movie posters... how ridiculous that is. you would expect a mmovie that made over $700 million worldwide would get a different box art than the posters.. although deeply disappointed with the cover art an awesome movie. but come on change the cover art for christ sake..

What is wrong with people, they ALWAYS b***h they don;t use the original poster art, then what happens, they USE the original poster art and people b***h.

I am glad that they are using it, Drew Struzan is the best movie poster artist to ever live. HE has made some of the most iconic posters ever.

Definite buy. I think I may get a PS3 so I can watch this in Bluray. May be the mivue that finally turns me to the other side.

This movie was a distant 4th behind the original 3. The whole movie had that filmed on a soundstage look to it. The originals always seemed to be filmed on location. They had wide shots showing the landscapes and had a gritty quality to them. This movie didnt look that way at all and had some poorly done cgi.

wow.. all of the box art are the same as the movie posters... how ridiculous that is. you would expect a mmovie that made over $700 million worldwide would get a different box art than the posters.. although deeply disappointed with the cover art an awesome movie. but come on change the cover art for christ sake..